10 commandments for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

No. Why do you ask?

I asked because I was trying to understand your take on having an unreasonable acceptance of or "blind faith" in a scientific fact.

Frankly, I don't understand how you perceive it to be unreasonable to accept that a clearly demonstrable fact is a fact. If someone put in the effort to discover why gravity operates the way it does and can demonstrate the consistency of that operation, it would seem to me that "blind faith" plays no role in the observeable fact that what goes up must come down.

It would be helpful if you could provide an example of what you mean by having blind faith in a fact, science and/or the scientific method. You seem to be using all three terms interchangeably.

[thomastwo]

Davin wrote

I do not, I've demonstrated my ability to read an comprehend what you said as you've said it (unless you want to point out where I haven't). Good work on your failure do defend your lying, not understanding what you did and/or your failure to remember the things you did.

I don't have the time or inclination to school you. Maybe you can ask your atheist buddies to help you out?

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

I asked because I was trying to understand your take on having an unreasonable acceptance of or "blind faith" in a scientific fact.

Frankly, I don't understand how you perceive it to be unreasonable to accept that a clearly demonstrable fact is a fact. If someone put in the effort to discover why gravity operates the way it does and can demonstrate the consistency of that operation, it would seem to me that "blind faith" plays no role in the observeable fact that what goes up must come down.

I agree. Somebody who doesn't have blind faith in science doesn't have blind faith in science. I never said that everybody has blind faith in science only that it is possible for somebody to have blind faith in science.

It's a completely obvious, unremarkable and straightforwards point that would have gone by unnoticed unless Davin had chosen to argue black is white.

Irreligious wrote

It would be helpful if you could provide an example of what you mean by having blind faith in a fact, science and/or the scientific method. You seem to be using all three terms interchangeably.

Here is the previous example I gave

"somebody could clearly believe in the scientific method without having evidence. For example "I believe in the scientific method because my teacher told me it was correct". Blind Faith."

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

I don't have the time or inclination to school you. Maybe you can ask your atheist buddies to help you out?

So it's just another one of your baseless claims. Keep up the dishonesty!

[thomastwo]

Sigh

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I agree. Somebody who doesn't have blind faith in science doesn't have blind faith in science. I never said that everybody has blind faith in science only that it is possible for somebody to have blind faith in science.

It's a completely obvious, unremarkable and straightforwards point that would have gone by unnoticed unless Davin had chosen to argue black is white.

I don't know about your point being obvious, straightforward and unremarkable, as it certainly isn't clear what you mean by science. Anyone who indulges the scientific method knows that it is a reliable means for acquiring new knowledge. I mean, it's not as if there is another way to acquire actual knowledge.

thomastwo wrote

Here is the previous example I gave

"somebody could clearly believe in the scientific method without having evidence. For example "I believe in the scientific method because my teacher told me it was correct". Blind Faith."

But that person would not be demonstrating a blind faith in the scientific method. He or she would be revealing his or her faith in a teacher. If one knows what the scientific method is and how it operates (you don't even have to be grounded in any particular scientific discipline to understand the principle), faith would not be required. Faith is completely superfluous when actual knowledge is available.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

I don't know about your point being obvious, straightforward and unremarkable, as it certainly isn't clear what you mean by science.

I think the word science is pretty self-explanatory. Or look in a dictionary if you don't know. Do you know what I mean by "dictionary"?

There's no need to squirm just to try and back up your buddy. No atheist left behind?

Irreligious wrote

Anyone who indulges the scientific method knows that it is a reliable means for acquiring new knowledge. I mean, it's not as if there is another way to acquire actual knowledge.

Math and Logic?

I know that (in decimal) 2 + 2 = 4. And I know that if Bob is a man then Bob is not a woman.

Observation?

I also know that the sun is shining at my location right now.

Irreligious wrote

But that person would not be demonstrating a blind faith in the scientific method. He or she would be revealing his or her faith in a teacher. If one knows what the scientific method is and how it operates (you don't even have to be grounded in any particular scientific discipline to understand the principle), faith would not be required. Faith is completely superfluous when actual knowledge is available.

Their statement that they believe in the scientific method would be blind faith. This is because they have no justified evidence for the belief. Blind faith is believing without justified evidence. Hope this is clear enough for you.

The reason for them acquiring the non-justified belief is not relevant.

I do agree that it is possible to believe in the scientific method for justified reasons. But it is also possible to believe in the scientific method for unjustified reasons.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I think the word science is pretty self-explanatory. Or look in a dictionary if you don't know. Do you know what I mean by "dictionary"?

There's no need to squirm just to try and back up your buddy. No atheist left behind?

I didn't say I don't know what science is. I said it wasn't clear what YOU MEANT when you used the word. There's no reason for you to get nasty. I merely asked you to explain what you meant and you still haven't.

thomastwo wrote

Math and Logic?

I know that (in decimal) 2 + 2 = 4. And I know that if Bob is a man then Bob is not a woman.

Observation?

I also know that the sun is shining at my location right now.

Fine. Then no faith is required for you know what is demonstrable and/or verifiable. If you know for a fact that 2 + 2 = 4 and that Bob is indeed a man (because you thoroughly checked it out using some observeable and verifiable means to do so), you possess knowledge, not faith.

thomastwo wrote

Their statement that they believe in the scientific method would be blind faith. This is because they have no justified evidence for the belief. Blind faith is believing without justified evidence. Hope this is clear enough for you.

It's a lot clearer, but also very wrong as a presumption. As I said, such a person would not be demonstrating faith in a method, but in a person who told him or her about the method. The scientific method speaks for itself. If you know what it is and how to apply it, it is a consistent means for verifying assumptions that are made about the natural world. In fact, it's the only known objective means that we have for doing so and these are the basic tools: Observe, hypothesize, test, measure, falsify, demonstrate, validate, etc.

thomastwo wrote

The reason for them acquiring the non-justified belief is not relevant.

I do agree that it is possible to believe in the scientific method for justified reasons. But it is also possible to believe in the scientific method for unjustified reasons.

Again, if you know what the scientific method entails, there is no reason to have faith that it works: it does, irrespective of one's beliefs.

[thomastwo]

You're just full of bluster and crap Irr.

First, you want to question my use of the word science when there is absolutely no reason to think it is anything other than the dictionary definition.

Then you make the completely laughable mistake of claiming that science is the only source of knowledge. If you ever get to college don't write this down on a philosophy paper. Your professor will be pissing themselves laughing whilst grading you an F and writing dofus on your paper.

Even though you are clearly demonstrating you don't know which way is up you still have the nerve to nitpick my ridiculously obviously correct point.

Redonkulous.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

You're just full of bluster and crap Irr.

That sounds good as an insult, but you haven't demonstrated that anything I've posted in response to your recent posts is either bluster or crap. You're seeking in vain to assert an equivalence between some people's reasonable trust in "scientists" and your faith in religious supposition, which is patently ridiculous.

Scientific claims are objectively verifiable. Your religious claims are not. They are completely faith-based unless and until they somehow reveal themselves to be fact-based. It's a 100 percent passive endeavor. You can tell me 1,001 things about a god or an alleged hell, but there is not one piece of concrete evidence that you can put forth to demonstrate that your claims are actual. Hence, neither you nor I can credibly claim to know anything about these allegations.

Genuine knowledge gained via the scientific method does not work that way. If you are claiming to believe something that you have not personally verified, then you have not acquired the asserted information via the scientific method, and it would be wrong to suggest that that is where you are putting your faith. It's not the scientific method that you're trusting, but the persons purporting to have used the method to acquire new information. You're indulging belief, but it's not because you have the first bit of understanding of what the scientific method is.

thomastwo wrote

First, you want to question my use of the word science when there is absolutely no reason to think it is anything other than the dictionary definition.

Yes, because it is not a careful use of the word in the context of this conversation. I'm not grounded in any scientific discipline, but I'm compelled to trust those who are. The evidence that they know what they're doing is all around me. It would be unreasonable for me, in my own abject ignorance of the various scientific disciplines, to assume that those who knowledgeably employ the scientific method are dealing in wholesale supposition, guesswork and faith.

They have a method for acquiring new information and verifying assumptions. I know that it's reliable. The evidence is overwhelming. And just to be clear, I said the scientific method is reliable (and objectively so). I am not saying that it is infallible.

thomastwo wrote

Then you make the completely laughable mistake of claiming that science is the only source of knowledge. If you ever get to college don't write this down on a philosophy paper. Your professor will be pissing themselves laughing whilst grading you an F and writing dofus on your paper.

Then I would challenge you to name another verifiable means of acquiring knowledge.

thomastwo wrote

Even though you are clearly demonstrating you don't know which way is up you still have the nerve to nitpick my ridiculously obviously correct point.

I know that I'm challenging you to demonstrate another objective means for acquiring knowledge and verifying assumptions other than the scientific method, and that you have yet to rise to challenge.

thomastwo wrote

Redonkulous.

Again, this is another assertion with no basis in reality. Telling me that what I'm saying is "redonkulous" and demonstrating the alleged "redonkulousness" of it are two different things entirely.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

That sounds good as an insult, but you haven't demonstrated that anything I've posted in response to your recent posts is either bluster or crap. You're seeking in vain to assert an equivalence between some people's reasonable trust in "scientists" and your faith in religious supposition, which is patently ridiculous.

This demonstrates your inability to follow the argument. All I have ever claimed is that it is possible to have blind faith in science. That's it. Nothing else. Any other claim is a figment of your over-active imagination.

You are tilting at windmills. It's an example of bluster.

Irreligious wrote

Scientific claims are objectively verifiable.

I think it's more precise to say that only objectively verifiable evidence is acceptable to support scientific theories.

Your formulation is incorrect. After all, not everything that purports to be a scientific claims is necessarily objectively verifiable.

Irreligious wrote

Your religious claims are not. They are completely faith-based unless and until they somehow reveal themselves to be fact-based. It's a 100 percent passive endeavor. You can tell me 1,001 things about a god or an alleged hell, but there is not one piece of concrete evidence that you can put forth to demonstrate that your claims are actual. Hence, neither you nor I can credibly claim to know anything about these allegations.

This is irrelevant to the point at hand. It's an attempt at misdirection and an example of your attempt to bluff your way out of a losing position.

Irreligious wrote

Genuine knowledge gained via the scientific method does not work that way. If you are claiming to believe something that you have not personally verified, then you have not acquired the asserted information via the scientific method, and it would be wrong to suggest that that is where you are putting your faith. It's not the scientific method that you're trusting, but the persons purporting to have used the method to acquire new information. You're indulging belief, but it's not because you have the first bit of understanding of what the scientific method is.

I have explained this point to you several times. Is it wilful ignorance or stupidity on your part to keep on bringing it up?

I am not saying and have never said that everybody who believes in science does so out of blind faith. Neither am I saying or have said that anybody who has blind faith in science is taking a reasonable position.

I am merely saying that it is something within the realm of possibility for somebody to have blind faith in science.

I have a very limited level of expectation that you will prove capable of either understanding this or of admitting your error.

Irreligious wrote

Yes, because it is not a careful use of the word in the context of this conversation.

Actually I'm the only person so far in this thread who has shown a correct understanding of the scientific method.

Not you who thinks it's the only way to acquire knowledge. Dumb ass.

So, give me a break and stop bringing up stupid objections based on the plain meaning of words.

Irreligious wrote

I'm not grounded in any scientific discipline, but I'm compelled to trust those who are. The evidence that they know what they're doing is all around me. It would be unreasonable for me, in my own abject ignorance of the various scientific disciplines, to assume that those who knowledgeably employ the scientific method are dealing in wholesale supposition, guesswork and faith.

This is actually a perfect demonstration that it is possible to have a blind faith in science. Thank you for providing the evidence to destroy your own argument. And without even knowing you had done it.

You are arguing for trust in authority as a source of knowledge? But wait, only a few lines earlier you said science was the only source of knowledge.

What an ass. And what's even more incredible is that your oh so cool and calculating atheist friends are too cowardly to call you on it.

Irreligious wrote

They have a method for acquiring new information and verifying assumptions. I know that it's reliable. The evidence is overwhelming. And just to be clear, I said the scientific method is reliable (and objectively so). I am not saying that it is infallible.

I agree that science provides reliable results and I agree that it is not infallible.

Irreligious wrote

Then I would challenge you to name another verifiable means of acquiring knowledge.

I already gave you two. Logic and Math. Even better they are capable of generating proven truth. That's more than science can do.

So, stop pretending you are the great defender of science when you are basically clueless.

Irreligious wrote

I know that I'm challenging you to demonstrate another objective means for acquiring knowledge and verifying assumptions other than the scientific method, and that you have yet to rise to challenge.

It's dishonest to shift the argument when you are losing it. I see your sly insertion of "and verifying assumptions" to shore up your position. Nice try, buster. Unfortunately for you science cannot verify assumptions, only show them to be not false.

But logic and math are still my answer for acquiring knowledge, even verified knowledge.

Irreligious wrote

Again, this is another assertion with no basis in reality. Telling me that what I'm saying is "redonkulous" and demonstrating the alleged "redonkulousness" of it are two different things entirely.

Honestly, after this parade of horribles that you presented as reasoned argument I'm surprised you're not making a redonkulous badge for yourself.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

This demonstrates your inability to follow the argument. All I have ever claimed is that it is possible to have blind faith in science. That's it. Nothing else. Any other claim is a figment of your over-active imagination.

You are tilting at windmills. It's an example of bluster.

It's a stupid claim, because no faith is required to acknowledge the reliability of the scientific method, which has time and again been demonstrated to be the only reliable means of acquiring new knowledge about the natural world that is objective and verifiable.

thomastwo wrote

I think it's more precise to say that only objectively verifiable evidence is acceptable to support scientific theories.

Your formulation is incorrect. After all, not everything that purports to be a scientific claims is necessarily objectively verifiable.

Wrong. You either have the goods to back up your claims or you don't, in which case you're not dealing in science. There has to be some evidence for every scientific claim or it's just a baseless assertion that has not yet been put through the rigors of the scientific method.

thomastwo wrote

This is irrelevant to the point at hand. It's an attempt at misdirection and an example of your attempt to bluff your way out of a losing position.

It's not irrelevant and you are the one seeking to misdirect by reducing the scientific method to just another belief system. You and I both know better.

thomastwo wrote

I have explained this point to you several times. Is it wilful ignorance or stupidity on your part to keep on bringing it up?

It's neither. It's an attempt at explaining to you why your assertion that science is just another faith-based belief system is flat-out wrong.

thomastwo wrote

I am not saying and have never said that everybody who believes in science does so out of blind faith. Neither am I saying or have said that anybody who has blind faith in science is taking a reasonable position.

I know what you said and I know what you're trying to do. I'm just challenging the validity of it. You know damned well that people who place their faith in physicians, radiologists, meteorologists, computer technologists, auto mechanics, architects, etc., are not placing their faith in the methods employed by these "scientifically" trained individuals. By and large, the laymen know next to nothing about the rigors of these disciplines. The layman's faith is placed in the practioners, not in the method. As I said already, the general method does not have to be questioned. We all know that it is reliable, and demonstrably so, or it wouldn't even be possible for you and I to communicate in the virtual way in which we are doing right now.

thomastwo wrote

I am merely saying that it is something within the realm of possibility for somebody to have blind faith in science.

I have a very limited level of expectation that you will prove capable of either understanding this or of admitting your error.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. I'm challenging it, because it doesn't make sense. At this point, I have little faith that you are capable of understanding why.

thomastwo wrote

Actually I'm the only person so far in this thread who has shown a correct understanding of the scientific method.

Not you who thinks it's the only way to acquire knowledge. Dumb ass.

So, give me a break and stop bringing up stupid objections based on the plain meaning of words.

You have demonstrated that you have an enormous ego, but you have not demonstrated any special understanding of the scientific method. Right now, you're also demonstrating your malevolence, which you claim not to have mastered. I haven't called you any names, despite the fact that I am finding you as frustrating to deal with as you seem to be finding me. What's up with that?

thomastwo wrote

This is actually a perfect demonstration that it is possible to have a blind faith in science. Thank you for providing the evidence to destroy your own argument. And without even knowing you had done it.

You are arguing for trust in authority as a source of knowledge?

What's the alternative? Are you willing to be your own physician while knowing that you lack the knowledge that a physician does? Does that make sense to you? And even with that, we seldom place blind trust in these men and women of science. Many of us who know next to nothing about medicine are aware that there are quacks who actually flout the scientific method. If your doctor recommended you chop off a toe to cure a headache, would you follow his advice just because he's a doctor? Of course not. Even a layman would be suspicious that that was scientifically based advice.

thomastwo wrote

But wait, only a few lines earlier you said science was the only source of knowledge.

And I noticed that you have not named another source.

thomastwo wrote

What an ass. And what's even more incredible is that your oh so cool and calculating atheist friends are too cowardly to call you on it.

If they had something to call me on, they would.

thomastwo wrote

I agree that science provides reliable results and I agree that it is not infallible.

Well, yeah. You don't have a choice but to agree, unless you want to risk appearing completely unreasonable.

thomastwo wrote

I already gave you two. Logic and Math. Even better they are capable of generating proven truth. That's more than science can do.

Logic and math are vital tools in the employment of the scientific method. There wouldn't be much science without them.

thomastwo wrote

So, stop pretending you are the great defender of science when you are basically clueless.

Science does not need me as defender. As I said already, the scientific method speaks for itself, over and over and over again. It doesn't require any validation from laymen.

thomastwo wrote

Can't you read? Logic and Math.

Again, they're often an aspect of the scientific method.

thomastwo wrote

Honestly, after this parade of horribles that you presented as reasoned argument I'm surprised you're not making a redonkulous badge for yourself.

I'm surprised you're not doing that for me, since it's your claim that my arguments are redonkulous, not mine.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

It's a stupid claim, because no faith is required to acknowledge the reliability of the scientific method, which has time and again been demonstrated to be the only reliable means of acquiring new knowledge about the natural world that is objective and verifiable.

I agree that faith is not required to acknowledge the reliability of the scientific method. This was not my point at any time. I only have one simple point. It is possible to have blind faith in science. That's it.

As I've already said, blind faith is not required to believe in science and blind faith is not a reasonable position to take in regards to science. Just one simple thing. It is possible to have blind faith in science.

Irreligious wrote

Wrong. You either have the goods to back up your claims or you don't, in which case you're not dealing in science. There has to be some evidence for every scientific claim or it's just a baseless assertion that has not yet been put through the rigors of the scientific method.

There have been many claims made that are supposedly scientific that have turned out not to be objective or verifiable. Many made by the scientific community themselves. Many as the result of honest attempts at bona fide science. Like I said not all scientific claims turn out to be based on objective evidence.

Irreligious wrote

It's not irrelevant and you are the one seeking to misdirect by reducing the scientific method to just another belief system. You and I both know better.

Nothing I have said is an attempt to reduce science to another belief system. My only, very narrow and unspectacular, point is that it is possible to have blind faith in science. That's it. Nothing else.

Irreligious wrote

It's neither. It's an attempt at explaining to you why your assertion that science is just another faith-based belief system is flat-out wrong.

That's not a claim I made. That's why your attempt to address a point I never made is a diversion and irrelevant.

Irreligious wrote

I know what you said and I know what you're trying to do. I'm just challenging the validity of it. You know damned well that people who place their faith in physicians, radiologists, meteorologists, computer technologists, auto mechanics, architects, etc., are not placing their faith in the methods employed by these "scientifically" trained individuals. By and large, the laymen know next to nothing about the rigors of these disciplines. The layman's faith is placed in the practioners, not in the method. As I said already, the general method does not have to be questioned. We all know that it is reliable, and demonstrably so, or it wouldn't even be possible for you and I to communicate in the virtual way in which we are doing right now.

You've completely lost me here. You are obviously caught up in some other imaginary conversation with me. It would be much easier and more efficient if you would stick to what I have actually said rather than what you imagine I might want to say or what I'm "trying to do".

I have never questioned the laypersons view of science. I've only claimed the theoretical possibility that somebody could have blind faith in science.

Irreligious wrote

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. I'm challenging it, because it doesn't make sense. At this point, I have little faith that you are capable of understanding why.

You have amply demonstrated that you don't really understand. Otherwise you would have addressed the point. It is clearly and patently possible for somebody to have blind faith in science. It's a nonsense to argue the opposite.

Irreligious wrote

You have demonstrated that you have an enormous ego, but you have not demonstrated any special understanding of the scientific method. Right now, you're also demonstrating your malevolence, which you claim not to have mastered. I haven't called you any names, despite the fact that I am finding you as frustrating to deal with as you seem to be finding me. What's up with that?

I don't have a "special" understanding of the scientific method just a correct one. One that doesn't lead to ridiculous assertions that science is the only source of knowledge for example.

Irreligious wrote

What's the alternative? Are you willing to be your own physician while knowing that you lack the knowledge that a physician does? Does that make sense to you? And even with that, we seldom place blind trust in these men and women of science. Many of us who know next to nothing about medicine are aware that there are quacks who actually flout the scientific method. If your doctor recommended you chop off a toe to cure a headache, would you follow his advice just because he's a doctor? Of course not. Even a layman would be suspicious that that was scientifically based advice.

Actually I think that a kind of blind faith ( belief without objective evidence ) is vital and necessary and perfectly reasonable in dealing with a physician or other expert. Remember it's you, not me who thinks that it's not possible to have such a blind faith.

Irreligious wrote

And I noticed that you have not named another source.

What? I named two other sources of knowledge. Math and Logic.

Irreligious wrote

If they had something to call me on, they would.

You have more faith in that than I do.

Irreligious wrote

Well, yeah. You don't have a choice but to agree, unless you want to risk appearing completely unreasonable.

I don't know why you would want to assume I wouldn't want to agree. I think though it helps explain why you are being such a pain in the ass over this really simple point of mine.

Irreligious wrote

Logic and math are vital tools in the employment of the scientific method. There wouldn't be much science without them.

Yes. But Logic and Math are not science.

Irreligious wrote

Science does not need me as defender. As I said already, the scientific method speaks for itself, over and over and over again. It doesn't require any validation from laymen.

Just as well given that you lack a basic understanding of it. Only source of knowledge? Humbug!

Irreligious wrote

Again, they're often an aspect of the scientific method.

This is disingenuous. You asked me to name another source of knowledge. I gave you two. Either dispute that they are sources of knowledge or accept that you were wrong.

Irreligious wrote

I'm surprised you're not doing that for me, since it's your claim that my arguments are redonkulous, not mine.

I was hoping you would come to your senses. Maybe my hope is misplaced.

[Irreligious]

Your claim that people place blind faith in science and/or the scientific method is nonsense, T2. The scientific method deals specifically with that which is observeable and/or demonstrable. It's not a blind or faith-based endeavor. Period.

Nor does it presume to provide anyone with "the truth," as there is always more to know and discover. All the egregious insults you can lob at me are not going to change that.

Furthermore, logic and math are often intrinsic aspects of employing the scientific method, and not some separate revelation of reality. Science could no more exist without math and logic than a cough could exist without lungs.

[Davin]

Maths is a science, so it's not another source from science. Logic is a science, so it's also not a separate source of knowledge from science. Other than that, Irreligious, you're doing awesome.

Edit: maths, not math. And more accurately, mathematics is a group of related sciences.